Changing demand: flexibility of energy practices in households with children (interim report)

(1)

C

HANGING DEMAND

:

FLEXIBILITY OF ENERGY

PRACTICES IN HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN

Interim Report

Findings from interviews with 44 family households

July 2014

Dr Larissa Nicholls and Dr Yolande Strengers

Beyond Behaviour Change Research Program

Centre for Urban Research

RMIT University

Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476, Melbourne VIC 3001, Ph + 61 (03) 9925 9012

Suggested citation: Nicholls, L & Strengers, Y 2014 Changing demand: Flexibility of energy practices

in households with children. Interim Report, Findings from interviews with 44 family households,

Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University, Melbourne.

(2)

A

CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was funded by the Consumer Advocacy Panel (www.advocacypanel.com.au) as part of its grants process for consumer advocacy projects and research projects for the benefit of

consumers of electricity and natural gas. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of the Consumer Advocacy Panel or the Australian Energy Market Commission.

This study was made possible with the enthusiasm and recruitment assistance of the following organisations:

x Anglicare, Summer Hill, NSW

x Connect Child & Family Services, Blue Mountains, NSW x Council of Social Service of New South Wales, NSW x Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Sydney, NSW x Robyn Jane Children's Centre, Healesville, Victoria x St George Migrant Resource Centre, Sydney, NSW

We thank the individuals from these and other organisations who assisted with the distribution of project information.

We gratefully acknowledge the discussions and input from consumer advocacy organisations and thank the Ethnic Communities' Council of NSW for organising translation services for the project.

This report was reviewed by Adjunct Professor Alan Pears from the Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University. We are grateful to Alan for his insights and constructive comments on a previous draft of this report. We also thank Dr Ellis Judson who assisted with analysis, data coding and comments for this report.

We appreciate the time and contribution of all the family householders who participated in this research. This report only discusses a small part of the complexity and diversity of life with children. We have not raised children ourselves, and therefore approached this work with little insight, and possibly fewer biases, from our own personal experience.

(3)

G

LOSSARY

Air conditioning Refers to air conditioned cooling.

CAP Consumer Advocacy Panel

Children Occupants of households who are living with their parents or another guardian (usually 18 years old or less but sometimes older).

Family households Households which include at least one parent and one dependent child 18 years or less.

ICTs Information and communications technologies IHD In-‐home display

Parents This term is used interchangeably with householders as all adult

householders interviewed were also parents. dŚĞƚĞƌŵ͚ƉĂƌĞŶƚ͛ŝƐĂůƐŽƵƐĞĚ in relation to other parenting arrangements such as step-‐parenting and ŽĐĐĂƐŝŽŶĂůůǇĨŽƌůŽŶŐƚĞƌŵĂƌƌĂŶŐĞŵĞŶƚƐŝŶǀŽůǀŝŶŐŽƚŚĞƌƉĞŽƉůĞ͛ƐĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ living in the home (e.g. overseas students).

Smart meter Interval meter

Teenagers Refers to children approximately 12-‐18 years old.

TOU Time-‐of-‐Use (3-‐part); refers loosely to all tariff times as advertised in different Australian states or by different Australian retailers.

TV Television

Young adults Refers to children approximately 19-‐25 years old living in the home. Young children Refers to children approximately 8 years old or less.

(4)

SUMMARY

^ƚĂƌƚŝŶŐĂĨĂŵŝůǇŝƐĂŵĂũŽƌĐŚĂŶŐĞŝŶŵŽƐƚƉĞŽƉůĞ͛ƐůŝǀĞƐ͘/ƚŝƐĂƚŝŵĞŽĨĐŚĂŶŐŝŶŐƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐĂŶĚ household routines. Larger households with children face ongoing pressures and competing demands on their time as children go through different stages of development. These ongoing ĐŚĂŶŐĞƐĂŶĚĚǇŶĂŵŝĐƐŚĂǀĞŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚŝŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐ͛ĂďŝůŝƚǇƚŽƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞŝŶĂŶĚĂĚĂƉƚƚŽ electricity market reforms and demand management initiatives. This interim report presents findings from interviews with family households conducted for a one-‐year Consumer Advocacy Panel (CAP)-‐ funded study titled ͚ŚĂŶŐŝŶŐĞŵĂŶĚ͗&ůĞǆŝďŝůŝƚǇŽĨĞŶĞƌŐǇƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐŝŶŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƐǁŝƚŚĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛.

W

HY STUDY FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS

?

Family households are rarely considered a consumer group in their own right by energy advocates, companies or regulatory bodies. However, they represent 25% of Australian households, experience more difficulty paying energy bills, have reduced family income and higher and less predictable energy use, are more likely to be at home during the day, _{are more likely to adopt new technologies,} and contain children who may be more vulnerable to heat and cold than healthy adults.

S

TUDY AIMS

This is the first Australian ƐƚƵĚǇĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĨůĞǆŝďŝůŝƚǇŽĨĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐ͛ƌŽƵƚŝŶĞƐĂŶĚƚŚĞŝƌĐŚĂŶŐŝŶŐ household practices. The project aims to:

1. increase the evidence underpinning advocacy intended to reduce the vulnerability of family households to rapid changes in the energy market and pricing structures (despite this ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĐŽŶƐƵŵĞƌĐůĂƐƐŽĨƚĞŶŶŽƚƋƵĂůŝĨǇŝŶŐĨŽƌ͚ůŽǁ-‐ŝŶĐŽŵĞ͛ĂƐƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞͿ͖ĂŶĚ

2. better understand what changes in energy use larger households have made in recent years and are likely to make in the future, how (in)flexible their household energy practices are at different times of the day, and what protection(s) and assistance is required to benefit this consumer group.

The study engages with ƚǁŽŽĨW͛ƐƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐƌĞůĂƚŝŶŐƚŽŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů electricity and gas markets:

1. Changing demand profiles Ͷ How has household demand changed in recent years? What are the drivers for those changes? Where is demand likely to go in the future?

2. Tariff design Ͷ What are the likely implications for different classes of consumers of any move toward more cost-‐reflective network tariffs?

M

ETHODOLOGY AND CONCEPTUAL APPROACH

This interim report presents the findings from in-‐depth interviews conducted with 44 family households in March-‐May 2014. Most interviews took půĂĐĞŝŶƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐ͛ŚŽŵĞƐĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞ afternoon and early evening electricity peak period in Victoria and New South Wales. Interviews were conducted with 1 or 2 adult occupants (parents) in households containing one or more dependent children. Thirty-‐four per cent of the interviewed households (15 households) were classified as low-‐income.

The research adopts a social practice conceptual approach advanced by the authors in past research. This approach views electricity consumption as an outcome of participating in shared social practices which are routinely carried out.

(5)

The authors conducted a thematic analysis of the interviews. The analysis sought to emphasise the ƌŽůĞ͕ĨůĞǆŝďŝůŝƚǇĂŶĚĐŚĂŶŐŝŶŐƌŽƵƚŝŶĞƐŽĨĞǀĞƌǇĚĂǇůŝĨĞ͕ĐĞŶƚƌĞĚŽŶĂƐĞƌŝĞƐŽĨŬĞǇ͚ĂĐƚŝǀŝƚǇĚŽŵĂŝŶƐ͛ which contribute to the majority of average and peak energy demand in Australian households. Additionally, the authors analysed what householders thought about electricity usage, bills, tariffs and market choices, and how these considerations intersected with or impacted on their everyday routines and practices.

F

INDINGS

A fundamental change: having children and new priorities

ŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛ƐŶĞĞĚƐĐĂŵĞĨŝƌƐƚŝŶĨĂŵŝůǇŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƐ͘dŚĞƚŝŵĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌƉĞƌƐŽŶĂů͚ŶĞĞĚƐ͛ĂŶĚ interests was substantially restricted for parents as a result of competing demands on their time. Routines were reoriented around a series of new priorities:

x learning to look after children and be a good parent;

x ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛ƐďĂƐŝĐŶĞĞĚƐ;Ğ͘Ő͘ĨĞĞĚŝŶŐ͕ĐůŽƚŚŝŶŐ͕ďĂƚŚŝŶŐĂnd putting to bed, and ͚ŚĞĂůƚŚǇ͛ƚĞŵƉĞƌĂƚƵƌĞƐ);

x educating and entertaining children; x discipline, safety and wellbeing of children; x ĐĂƌŝŶŐĨŽƌĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶǁŝƚŚ͚ŚŝŐŚŶĞĞĚƐ͖͛

x coping as a sole parent and/or managing shared parenting arrangements; x managing injury, illness, and trauma in the family;

x managing exhaustion, mental health/ social isolation; x encouraging family social interaction;

x housework (e.g. cleaning and tidying, grocery shopping, cooking);

x juggling paid work (including working from home) and study commitments; x caring for/ accommodating elderly parents in the home;

x multi-‐tasking and forward planning activities; and

x household administration (e.g. managing finances, paying bills, home maintenance).

Role of routine in family life: managing time and competing activities

Family routines were coordinated around four approximate ͚ĂĐƚŝǀŝƚǇƉĞƌŝŽĚƐ͛ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞĚĂǇ͗ x Starting the day (rise-‐9am)Ͷ ͚ůŝŬĞĐůŽĐŬǁŽƌŬ͖͛

x Morning to early afternoon (9am-‐3pm)Ͷ͚ŐĞƚŽƵƚŽĨƚŚĞŚŽƵƐĞ͛ĂŶĚͬŽƌ͚ƐƚĂǇŽŶƚŽƉŽĨ ƚŚŝŶŐƐ͖͛

x Afternoon to early evening (3-‐9pm) Ͷ ͚family peak period͛ in most homes; and x Late evening (after 9pm) Ͷ Ă͚ƋƵŝĞƚer ƚŝŵĞ͛͘

The family peak period (3-‐9pm) correlated approximately with three-‐part Time-‐of-‐Use (TOU) tariff peak period. In households with young children the family peak period involved an intense and highly coordinated period of activity which normally occurred before dinnertime. This was referred ƚŽĂƐ͚ĐƌĂǌǇƚŝŵĞ͕͚͛ĂƌƐĞŶŝĐŚŽƵƌ͛ĂŶĚ͚ĨĞƌĂůŽ͛ĐůŽĐŬ͛ĚƵĞƚŽ ĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛ƐĐŚĂůůĞŶŐŝŶŐďĞŚĂǀŝŽƵƌ͕

children͛ƐĂŶĚƉĂƌĞŶƚ͛ƐƚŝƌĞĚŶĞƐƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĂŶŐĞŽĨthings to be done in family homes during this time.

Alongside routinised aspects of family life, ͚tŝŵĞŐĂƉƐ͛ŽƌƐŚŽƌƚŵŽŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŝŵĞĐƌĞĂƚĞĚǁŚĞŶ children were otherwise entertained or resting provided important opportunities for parents to carry out practices, such as putting on a load of washing. Multi-‐tasking and coordination of different ĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐǁĂƐĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚůǇƵƐĞĚƚŽƚƌǇƚŽ͚ƐƚĂǇŽŶƚŽƉŽĨƚŚŝŶŐƐ͛ĂŶĚƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞƉŽƐƐŝďŝůŝƚǇŽĨ͚ĐŚĂŽƐ͛ in the home.

(6)

ParĞŶƚƐǁŽƌŬĞĚƚŽǁĂƌĚƐĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐ͚ĚŽǁŶƚŝŵĞ͛ĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞ late evening activity period. This was time for parents (and young adults) to regroup, relax and do something for themselves or others (such as their workplace or a charity/ social group) after a busy day.

͚EŽƌŵĂů͛ĚŝƐƌƵƉƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƚŚĞĨůĞǆŝďŝůŝƚǇŽĨĨĂŵŝůǇƌŽƵƚŝŶĞƐ

Amidst these day-‐to-‐day routines, regular and sometimes routine disruptions were also a normal part of everyday family life. Disruptions included events and conditions such as:

x illness and injuries;

x changing household members, e.g. guests and short-‐/long-‐term visitors; x pregnancy and a new baby;

x relationship breakdown and changed parenting responsibilities; x employment disruptions, e.g. loss or change of job, shift work; x urgent work responsibilities;

x ĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛ƐƐƉŽƌƚĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ͖ x car breakdown;

x school holidays; x heatwaves;

x bushfires and evacuations (outer urban and regional households); x power outages; and

x weather and seasonal variations.

Family households were very flexible and adaptable in response to these and other conditions and ĐŝƌĐƵŵƐƚĂŶĐĞƐ͘ZĞŐƵůĂƌƌŽƵƚŝŶĞƐŽƌŐĂŶŝƐĞĚĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞĨŽƵƌĂĐƚŝǀŝƚǇƉĞƌŝŽĚƐǁŽƵůĚ͚ďŽƵŶĐĞďĂĐŬ͛;Žƌ sometimes carry on) following a normal disruption.

Changing activities in family households

Family households had experienced or were experiencing change in household practices across four activity domains which contribute to average and daily peaks in electricity demand:

x thermal comfort (heating and cooling);

x cleanliness and care (bathing, laundering, house cleaning and personal grooming); x food provisioning (cooking, baking, snacking, hot drinks and food storage); and x entertainment, work and study (TV viewing, ICT use)

Change occurred within each household as children aged and went through various stages of life development, and across the cohort of family households as new practice expectations emerged and changed with the introduction of new technologies, changing house design, increasing energy costs, and changing priorities.

Family practices held meanings which are distinct from how these practices are valued and ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĞĚŝŶŽƚŚĞƌƚǇƉĞƐŽĨŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƐ͘/ŶƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌ͕ĨĂŵŝůǇŚĞĂůƚŚ͕ĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛ƐŽŶŐŽŝŶŐ

development, providing practical life skills, and enabling fun and socialisation were valued benefits which came from routinely carrying out ƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐĂĐƌŽƐƐƚŚĞĂĐƚŝǀŝƚǇĚŽŵĂŝŶƐ͘zŽƵŶŐĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛Ɛ bathing, for example, provided social interaction between family members and ensured children ǁĞƌĞĞŶƚĞƌƚĂŝŶĞĚĂŶĚŽĐĐƵƉŝĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞ;ŽƌĚƵƌŝŶŐͿƚŚĞ͚ĐƌĂǌǇŚŽƵƌ͛ĂŶĚĚŝŶŶĞƌ͘ChilĚƌĞŶ͛ƐďĂƚŚŝŶŐ ĂůƐŽĐƌĞĂƚĞĚ͚ƐƉĂĐĞ͛ and time for parents to prepare the evening meal.

Key areas of change for family households included:

x the installation of household air-‐conditioning around the time of starting a family; x increased use of heating and cooling appliances for children and families;

(7)

x increased time and energy spent on personal grooming for young adults (teenagers); x increased food storage (refrigeration and freezing capacity) to support bulk-‐buy shopping

(economy and convenience) and bulk cooking (to enable the provision of healthy food); x importance of televisions for entertainment and occupying children;

x rapid changes in ICT use for young children, teenagers and parents for entertainment, schooling, communication and work; and

x changes in home occupancy including grandparents and overseas students living with the family on short-‐ or long-‐term bases.

ICT practices was the biggest area of concern and rapid change for family households and many ƉĂƌĞŶƚƐĨĞůƚƚŚĞǇŚĂĚůŝƚƚůĞ͚ĐŽŶƚƌŽů͛ŽǀĞƌƚŚĞŝƌĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛ƐƵƐĂŐĞ͘WĂƌĞŶƚƐ͛ǀŝĞǁƐĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂů health, social isolation and wellbeing impacts of their children spending prolonged screen time with ICT devices were often in conflict with the potential educational, development and communication functionalities these devices provided. These competing priorities and concerns took precedence over any energy concerns relating to ICT use and limited opportunities for parental intervention. Housing and appliance arrangements, such as rental agreements, home renovations, old and new housing formats, and existing appliances, restricted ŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚĞƌƐ͛ĂďŝůŝƚǇƚŽĐŚĂŶŐĞthe energy use associated with some household activities.

Disengagement from electricity services and consumption

Electricity usage was ŶŽƚĂŬĞǇĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŝŶŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚĞƌƐ͛ everyday activities or priorities; this is despite rising electricity bills being a common concern or contributor to financial stress for family households. Where electricity usage was of interest to parents, most expressed limited capacity to control or monitor the consumption of their children. Most householders did not think there was much they could do to reduce their electricity consumption or bills further.

Most householders had very low levels of energy literacy and engagement. Few householders knew what a smart meter was or how it might be useful for the household. Several migrant households were more engaged in energy issues; they had practical experience in conserving resource use that helped them make changes to their routines. Most households felt unable to make appropriate choices about electricity tariffs and providers, and some were consciously disengaging from the current energy market focus on energy choices.

Flexibility and change for demand management

Most householders were confused or uncertain about their current electricity tariff. Most

householders thought that electricity was cheaper at night even though most did not have a tariff with an off-‐peak rate. In order to take advantage of assumed off-‐peak rates, some households were already running the washing machine and/ or dishwasher in the late evening if practicable.

Households that had already made adjustments (or disregarded further potential changes) to their routines had few practicable options for further flexibility if they changed to a TOU tariff.

Most family households were concerned about the financial impact of a TOU tariff on their household; however they discussed how changing their daily routines for a TOU tariff was impracticable or too hard. Other family priorities took precedence over financial savings. Some households were interested in potential cost savings and suggested they could shift some

dishwashing and/ or laundering activities outside the peak time; however noise, convenience and other issues were a concern. In addition, the many changes that occur as part of family life (e.g. changes in numbers, ages and interests of children, and parents work patterns) potentially affected whether routines would be (or were) flexible where a TOU tariff applied. The financial outcome of a TOU tariff was particularly unpredictable because of this rapid change.

(8)

,ŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚĞƌƐǁĞƌĞĂƐŬĞĚŝĨƚŚĞǇǁŽƵůĚƌĞƐƉŽŶĚƚŽĂ͚ƉĞĂŬĂůĞƌƚ͛ŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞǇǁŽƵůĚďĞ asked to cut back their electricity use for a few hours during a critical peak period (the example given was in relation to a hot summer day). Most householders were willing to shift their routines in response to occasional peak alerts. They described concerns for the ͚ĐŽŵŵŽŶŐŽŽĚ͛and the need to work together for social benefits and to minimise negative impacts on the community or the health and wellbeing of others (distinct from personal financial gain or environmental benefits). Where householders had previously indicated that no family routines could be shifted during the TOU peak period, they often subsequently discussed major shifts that could take place in response to an occasional peak alert. Householders demonstrated their capacity to make these changes in other aspects of their everyday lives by discussing adaptations and innovations they had undertaken in their homes to reduce energy use.

D

ISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The findings suggest that current consumer demand management and engagement activities need to go beyond individually motivating family households to save money, protect the environment, or make better choices in the electricity market. Electricity usage was not a priority for family

households in relation to their day-‐to-‐day activities; instead health and wellbeing, convenience, entertainment and development/ life skill opportunities and coping with family pressures were key concerns. While family households depended on routines and had little capacity to reorganise the family peak period (TOU peak period) or other activity periods, they were adaptable and inventive, and regularly shifted routines in response to normal disruptions.

Peak alerts, framed as a natural event ŽƌĂŶ͚ĞǆĐĞƉƚŝŽŶĂůĐŝƌĐƵŵƐƚĂŶĐĞ͛ƚŚĂƚďĞŶĞĨŝƚƐĂĐŽŵŵŽŶŐŽŽĚ and assists reliable and affordable access to electricity, is a potentially agreeable and productive strategy for engaging families to reduce energy use at times of peak demand.

N

EXT STEPS

This interim project report communicates preliminary findings from the first stage of the Changing

Demand project. Findings will be discussed with advocacy organisations in two forums held in

Victoria and Sydney in August 2014. Findings will also be used to design a survey for family

households, to be conducted in the second half of 2014. A final project report, including discussion of possible protections to benefit this consumer group, will be released in January 2015.

(9)

L

IST OF TABLES

Table 1 Summary of participant / household characteristics ... 7

Table 2 <ĞǇĐŚĂŶŐĞƐŝŶŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚĞƌƐ͛ůŝǀĞƐǁŚĞŶƐƚĂƌƚŝŶŐĂĨĂŵŝůǇ ... 9

Table 3 WƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐĨŽƌƉĂƌĞŶƚƐ͛ƚŝŵĞĂŶĚĂƚƚĞŶƚŝŽŶĂƚŚŽŵĞ ... 10

Table 4 Disruptions experienced on a regular or occasional basis ... 17

dĂďůĞϱWĂƌĞŶƚĂůĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐĂŶĚƉƌĞƐƐƵƌĞƐƌĞůĂƚŝŶŐƚŽĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͛Ɛ/dƵƐĞ ... 32

dĂďůĞϲZĞĂƐŽŶƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚĞƌƐ͛ŶŽƚĐŚŽŽƐŝŶŐĂŵŽƌĞĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂůůǇďĞŶĞĨŝĐŝĂůĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚǇŽĨĨĞƌ ... 46

Table 7 Householder responses to assumed (but often not applicable) 'off-‐peak' electricity rates ... 48

Table 8 Householder responses to the idea of TOU tariffs ... 49

Table 9 Householder experiences of TOU tariffs ... 51

Table 10 Contrasting householder responses Ͷ TOU tariffs and 'peak alerts' ... 55

L

IST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Summary of activity periods throughout the day ... 12

Figure 2 Weekday routine activity periods in family households ... 13

Figure 3 An example of weekday TOU tariff periods in Victoria ... 13

(11)

1 INTRODUCTION

The Consumer Advocacy Panel (CAP) facilitates customer advocacy in electricity and national gas markets in Australia. In 2013 CAP identified a number of research priorities relating to national electricity and gas markets:

x Changing demand profiles Ͷ How has household demand had changed in recent years? What are the drivers for those changes? Where is demand likely to go in the future? x Tariff design Ͷ What are the likely implications for different classes of consumers of any

move toward more cost-‐reflective network tariffs?

This interim report for the Changing Demand: flexibility of energy practices in households with

children project investigates the above two priorities in relation to households with children (also

ƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚƚŽĂƐ͚ĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐ͛Žƌ͚ĨĂŵŝůǇŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƐ͛ͿƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂŶĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐŽĨϰϰŝŶ-‐depth interviews conducted with Victorian and New South Wales (NSW) households.

1.1 F

AMILY HOUSEHOLDS AND ELECTRICITY MARKET REFORMS

Families represent 25 per cent of Australian households (ABS 2013). These households face a series of unique vulnerabilities and challenges in light of recent and proposed energy market changes including that they:

x are more likely to be at home during the day (ABS 2013); x have reduced family income

(ABS 2013);

x experience more difficulty paying energy bills (IPART 2010; Simshauser & Nelson 2012) but often do not qualify for concessions and rebates;

x have more occupants and higher and less predictable consumption; and x have children who may be more vulnerable to heat and cold.

In addition, households with children often adopt new technologies (Zpryme 2011) and may be more frequently recruited into new practices which consume energy (such as adopting new technologies for entertainment/ schooling etc.). However, little work has been done to understand changing energy use in families (Fell et al. 2014) or the implications of current and proposed changes to electricity tariffs on this consumer group. As the national electricity market moves towards more cost-‐reflective network tariffs it is important to understand how households with children might respond or adapt to these changes, and what the possible financial or other wellbeing outcomes for families might be.

Three-‐part Time-‐of-‐Use (TOU) tariffs have been introduced in some Australian states both on choice-‐ based (opt-‐in) and default bases. In Victoria, dKhƚĂƌŝĨĨƐ;Žƌ͚ĨůĞǆŝďůĞƉƌŝĐŝŶŐ͛ͿĂƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞd to household consumers as a measure to:

͚provide [households] with more choice and control over [their] power bill. Flexible pricing provides an incentive to use power outside of peak times, reducing the need for expensive energy infrastructure upgrade costs to be passed on to all consumers͛͘;^'KsϮϬϭϰͿ

Three-‐ƉĂƌƚdKhƚĂƌŝĨĨƐĐŽŶƐŝƐƚŽĨ͚ƉĞĂŬ͕͚͛ƐŚŽƵůĚĞƌ͛ĂŶĚ͚ŽĨĨ-‐ƉĞĂŬ͛ƌĂƚĞƐǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉůǇĂƚĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚƚŝŵĞƐ of the day (see Figure 3 for an example) with the peak rate applying to weekday afternoons and early evenings (approximately 3-‐9pm, allowing for some state and retailer variation).

Preliminary energy use profile data from AGL indicated that TOU tariffs are likely to have different outcomes for different groups of consumers (Simshauser 2014). This data suggested that hardship or concession households are more likely than not to benefit financially from a TOU tariff (without changing the timing of their electricity use). However, more than half of households with children were predicted to be financially worse off on a TOU tariff if they did not shift some energy practices

(12)

to cheaper periods of the day. Larger households with children are also disproportionately likely to be at risk of disconnection (Simshauser 2012). This makes understanding the flexibility of practices and routines in family households an especially important concern.

1.2 C

ONCEPTUAL APPROACH AND STUDY SCOPE

This research is informed by theories of social practice (Shove et al. 2012) and sociological understandings of routine, flexibility and timing in everyday life (Southerton 2003, 2007). Social ƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƚŚĞŽƌŝĞƐƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚĐŽŶƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶĂƐĂ͚ŵŽŵĞŶƚ͛ŽƌŽƵƚĐŽŵĞŽĨƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚŝŶŐŝŶƐŽĐŝĂůůǇ-‐ shared practices, such as laundering, bathing, cooking or home cooling (Warde 2005). This

conceptual approach follows the ĂƵƚŚŽƌƐ͛ƉĂƐƚƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽŶĞŶĞƌŐǇĚĞŵĂŶĚ;EŝĐŚŽůůƐĂŶĚ^ƚƌĞŶŐĞƌƐ 2013; Strengers 2013), and other international research investigating energy demand as an outcome of interwoven social practices (Powells et al. 2014; Walker 2014). Rather than investigating

ŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůƐ͛ĂƚƚŝƚƵĚĞƐŽƌďĞŚĂǀŝŽƵƌƐ͕ƚŚĞƐƚƵĚǇŝƐfocused on practices routinely performed in and ĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞŚŽŵĞƚŚĂƚĐŽŶƐƵŵĞĞŶĞƌŐǇ;ĂůƐŽƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚƚŽĂƐ͚ĞŶĞƌŐǇƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐ͛ ĂŶĚ͚ŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚ practiceƐ͛).

In addressing the first key CAP priority regarding changing demand profiles, this project investigates the practices of family households across four activity domains, where the majority of energy consumption and peak electricity demand is produced (Petchey 2010):

x thermal comfort; x cleanliness and care; x food provisioning; and

x entertainment, work and study.

In addressing the second priority regarding tariff design, the project investigates the timing and coordination of daily routines, and how these routines are already regularly disrupted and shifted to other times of the day. The project also seeks to understand the flexibility (or otherwise) of practices in family households in relation to various conditions and events, including TOU tariffs. Findings are intended to inform discussion about changing energy demand and the potential impacts of time-‐ based pricing in family households.

Additionally, the project investigates a range of energy concepts and understandings, such as family ŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚĞƌƐ͛ĐŽŶĐĞƉƚŽĨ͚ĐŚŽŝĐĞ͛ŝŶƚŚĞĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚǇŵĂƌŬĞƚ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞŝƌƌĞĂĐƚŝŽŶƐƚŽĂŶĚƚŚŽƵŐŚƚƐŽŶ different demand management and tariff options.

1.3 O

UTLINE OF REPORT

This interim report presents findings from 44 in-‐depth interviews with households in Victoria and NSW which comprise the first stage of the Changing Demand project. The report is organised as follows. Section 2 outlines the methodology, including recruitment, methods and analysis; and participant characteristics. Section 3 outlines the findings and key insights relating to:

x changing family priorities, the role of routine in everyday life, and disruption to family household routines (Sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3);

x household activities and change in four main areas of household energy use (Section 3.4); x householder engagement with electricity services and consumption (Section 3.5); and x flexibility and change for demand management (Section 3.6).

The report concludes with a summary of the initial research implications for family households which provides a basis for communication and consultation with consumer advocacy organisations. The next stage of the Changing Demand project will deliver a national survey which builds on the

(13)

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 M

ETHODS

,

RECRUITMENT

,

AND ANALYSIS

The Changing Demand project employs mixed methods. The findings presented in this report draw on the first stage of research, which involved in-‐depth interviews and home tours with households. This qualitative research provides thematic depth and is useful for identifying connections,

contradictions and complexities in family households which are relevant to how energy practices are changing in family homes, and how they are organised and coordinated around specific time periods during the day. Emerging trends and issues from the interviews and home tours will inform the national survey conducted later in 2014 as part of this project.

Interview participants were recruited via posters, paper and electronic flyers, email, through the project website (http://familyenergystudy.net), social media, and ͚snowballing͛ (Robson 2002). Avenues for distribution of recruitment information included maternal/child health and childcare centres, schools, community centres, sports centres and events and libraries located in the suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney, and towns in regional Victoria. Recruitment was assisted by key

organisations that provide services for families including social service agencies. Participants were offered a $50 Coles/Myer gift voucher for their participation in line with best practice social research, and to avoid a strong environmental or altruistic bias in the sample.

Interviews were conducted with 44 households (10 in Melbourne; 12 in regional Victoria; and 22 in Sydney and the Blue Mountains area).The main criteria for inclusion in the study were having at least three people living in the home and at least one child 18 years of age or younger. Interviews

included one or more adults from each household (children were also involved in some homes) and were conducted between March-‐May 2014 by one or two of the authors. Participant observation was used to assess a range of non-‐verbal responses and reactions including hostility, humour, uncertainty and confusion, as well as to understand the dynamics between participants in the same household. A demographic questionnaire was completed by all participants. Interviews were semi-‐ structured and conducted as an open-‐ended conversation between the researcher(s) and

participant(s) with interview questions being used as a guide through the interview topics (see Appendix). The order, wording, and inclusion of questions were adapted to the householders being interviewed, taking into consideration their answers and understandings, the flow of conversation, and participant observations. Two interviews were conducted via an interpreter.

The researchers engaged householders in discussion on the following topics:

x Practices carried out duƌŝŶŐ͚ƉĞĂŬƚŝŵĞƐ͛;ďƌŽĂĚůǇĚĞĨŝŶĞĚĂƐϮ-‐9pm weekdays, allowing for some variations in NSW and Victoria), focusing on the main household activity domains which comprise the majority of energy consumption and peak electricity demand in households: thermal comfort; cleanliness and care; food provisioning; and entertainment, work, and study (Petchey 2010);

x Everyday running of the household, priorities, and management of energy use. x Daily routines and routine disruptions;

x Changes in appliance ownership and usage over recent years (specifically since having children);

(14)

x Experiences with electricity bills and recent electricity market reforms; x TOU experience (TOU households); and

x TOU interpretations and potential opportunities for flexibility (non-‐TOU households)1 . tŚĞƌĞĨĞĂƐŝďůĞ͕ŝŶƚĞƌǀŝĞǁƐǁĞƌĞĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚĂƚƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐ͛ŚŽŵĞƐĚƵƌŝŶŐ͚ƉĞĂŬ͛ƚŝŵĞƐŽĨƚŚĞĚĂǇ (according to proposed or existing TOU tariff structures), and included a tour of the home and its immediate surrounds. This approach allowed researchers and participants to jointly experience, investigate and discuss current and emerging routines and practices that use energy in the home. Site visits were between one and two hours in length. Interviews were voice recorded, data were professionally transcribed, and transcripts were thematically analysed using the qualitative software analysis program NVivo. Consistent with a qualitative research methodology, the sample is not statistically representative but seeks to investigate and identify emerging themes in-‐depth. The sample size is consistent with the number of cases expected to achieve data saturation in qualitative research, where no new themes emerge despite continuing data collection (Morse & Richards 2002). dŚŝƐƐƚƵĚǇŚĂƐĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůĨƌŽŵZD/dhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ͛Ɛ,uman Ethics Committee and all research has been ĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚZD/dhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ͛Ɛhuman ethics guidelines. All participants have been de-‐identified with pseudonyms throughout this report. Direct quotations are represented in italics and are included verbatim to retain the conversational style of the interview. As such, they may ĐŽŶƚĂŝŶŐƌĂŵŵĂƚŝĐĂůŽƌƚǇƉŽŐƌĂƉŚŝĐĂůĞƌƌŽƌƐ͘ůůŝƉƐŝƐƉŽŝŶƚƐ;͙ͿŵĂƌŬĂŶŽŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĨƌŽŵĂƋƵŽƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘ Supplementary text for quotations is provided in square brackets ([ ]) where clarification is required. Quotes included in the data tables are limited to an illustrative selection for each theme except where additional quotes provide further breadth or depth of findings, or offer new insights. This study investigates the energy practices and routines that use energy in family households and how they are changing. As such, practices are usually discussed without reference to their relevant energy source (gas, electric or otherwise). For example, hot water use during peak times in

households with gas or off-‐peak electric hot water may have no impact on their peak electricity use. However, the timing and performance of a practice Ͷsuch as bathing children Ͷ is particularly relevant to peak electricity use in households with electric hot water systems that heat on demand (e.g. small storage hot water systems, often found in apartments). Greater attention is given to the source of energy when it played a key role in the timing or performance of practices or was relevant to trajectories of change that may affect peak electricity consumption in family households.

1

Where householders were unfamiliar with TOU tariffs the concept was briefly described as involving: three different

electricity prices on weekdays; weekday electricity more expensive in 2-‐8pm or 3-‐ϵƉŵ͚ƉĞĂŬ͛ƉĞƌŝŽĚ͖ǁĞĞŬĚĂǇĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚǇ ůĞƐƐĞǆƉĞŶƐŝǀĞŝŶƚŚĞ͚ŽĨĨ-‐ƉĞĂŬ͛ϭϬƉŵƚŽϳĂŵƉĞƌŝŽĚ;ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐĨŽƌĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶE^tĂŶĚsŝĐƚŽƌŝĂͿ͖ůŝƚƚůĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƚŽ ǁĞĞŬĚĂǇĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚǇƉƌŝĐĞƐĂƚŽƚŚĞƌƚŝŵĞƐŽĨǁĞĞŬĚĂǇƐ;͚ƐŚŽƵůĚĞƌ͛ƉĞƌŝŽĚͿ͖ĂŶĚ͚ƉĞĂŬ͛ƉĞƌŝŽĚĂƚ͚ƐŚŽƵůĚĞƌ͛ƌĂƚĞŽŶ weekends. The actual rates in each period were not included in the description but approximate rates were provided by the researchers if the householder asked. The focus of the discussion was then directed to householder interpretations of the concept and how the TOU tariff might affect what households did in the late afternoon/early evening weekday (peak)

(15)

2.2 P

ARTICIPANT HOUSEHOLDS

Forty-‐four interviews were conducted with 50 participants (not including occasional participation by ƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐ͛ĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶͿůŝǀŝŶŐŝŶŵĞƚƌŽƉŽůŝƚĂn Melbourne, regional Victoria, Sydney and the Blue Mountains region. Victorian households lived in the following local government areas: Darebin; Wyndham; Moonee Valley; Kingston; Moreland; Port Phillip; Yarra; Cardinia; Greater Geelong; Macedon Ranges; Mount Alexander Shire; and Yarra Ranges (22 households). NSW households lived in the following local government areas: Bankstown; Kogarah; Marrickville; Hurstville; Randwick; Rockdale; and Blue Mountains (22 households).

A summary of participants and household characteristics is provided in Table 1. The age of participants ranged from 25-‐54 and the median age range of participants was 35-‐44.The ages of dependent children ranged from two months to 22 years. Household composition was

predominantly couples with dependent children, but participant households included sole parents with children, step-‐ĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐ͕͚ďůĞŶĚĞĚĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐ͕͛ĂŶĚĞǆƚĞŶĚĞĚĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐ͕ƌĞĨůĞĐƚŝŶŐƚƌĞŶĚƐƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ more diverse family forms (Qu and Weston 2013). Nine participants were sole parents. The number of household occupants ranged from 2-‐9 persons Ͷ one household with only two occupants (1 child) was included as the only social housing occupants. The average size of households was 4.1 occupants, compared to the Australian average of 2.57 (ABS 2013a) and the number of children living in the home ranged from 1 to 7 (average across sample = 2.0). Participants were

predominantly mothers (86%) as few fathers volunteered to be interviewed.

Twenty-‐one participants (42%) were migrants which is higher than the Australian average (26%); however migrant resident rates are higher in urban centres such as Melbourne (35%) and Sydney (39%) (ABS 2014). In addition, some of the Sydney areas from which TOU tariff households were recruited have a higher proportion of migrant households (e.g. 62% migrants in Bankstown

government area, ABS 2012). More migrants were from China (8 households) than any other country which is also reflective of the migrant population in this area of Sydney. Length of Australian

residence for migrant participants ranged from 1 to 40 years.

Seventy-‐three per cent of households interviewed owned their home (with or without a mortgage) which is approximately reflective of the broader pattern of housing tenure in Australia (67% home ownership) (ABS 2012). Fifteen households (34%) were low-‐income/ Healthcare card holders which approximately met the recruitment target (35% low-‐income households). Thirty-‐two households (73%) provided their annual household income. Median household annual incomes for these households were in the range AU$67,700-‐83,200. In comparison, the average annual income for full-‐ time working adults in Australia is AU$77,932 and the median income for couple families with children and two incomes in Australia, is AU$104,000 or more (ABS 2013a, 2013b). Thirty-‐six (82%) householders had completed a university, TAFE or trade qualification which is higher than average for 25-‐64 year olds in Australia (64.1%) (ABS 2012).

The research aimed to include 12 households that were on a Time-‐of-‐Use (TOU, 3-‐part) tariff. Recruitment of TOU tariff households was targeted to the Southern and Canterbury-‐Bankstown ĂƌĞĂƐŽĨ^ǇĚŶĞǇ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂƵƚŚŽƌƐ͛ƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ;ĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůͿ͕

householders were often unfamiliar or misunderstood their tariff (see Section 2.3 and 3.6.1). Eight households were confirmed as being on a TOU tariff (through citation of their bills) and six

ŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚ͛Ɛ tariff type could not be confirmed but their responses suggested that they may be on a TOU tariff.

(16)

Table 1 Summary of participant / household characteristics CHARACTERISTIC DETAILS Gender and parenting arrangements x 43 women, 7 men

x Most interviews were with mothers only; 1 interview with the father only (full-‐time stay-‐at-‐home parent); 6 interviews with both parents but in most cases 2nd adult participated intermittently

x 9 interviews with sole parents (all mothers)

Dwelling and occupancy

x 35 detached homes; 2 semi-‐detached; and 7 apartments x Household size ranged from 2-‐9 occupants (average = 4.1) x Number of children ranged from 1-‐7 (average = 2.0)

x 3 households included long-‐term students unrelated to the family; 5 households permanently included grandparents or unrelated adults; and another 5 households often had long-‐term guests

Age2

x Adult participants: 13 participants 25-‐34 years old; 22 participants 35-‐44 years old; and 9 participants 45-‐54 years old

x Children: 4 children <1 year old; 11 children 1-‐2 years old; 19 children 2-‐4 years old; 33 children 5-‐11 years old; 20 children 12-‐18 years old; and 2 children >18 years old

Education level and work1

x 26 university/college; 10 TAFE/Trade; 4 Year 12; and 4 Year 10 x 17 home-‐maker/not working; 6 working full time; 15 part-‐time; and 6

casual

x Various work types

Cultural diversity

x 21 (42%) participants were born outside Australia

x Migrant countries of origin were China (8), United Kingdom (4), Germany (2), France, Ireland, Russia, Lebanon, Egypt, Vietnam and Brazil (1 each) x 15 participants had migrated to Australia in the last 10 years

x English was not the first language for 15 participants

Financial situation

x Median annual household income range was AU$67,700-‐83,200 x 15 households (34%) had concession/ Healthcare cards

x 3 households without concession cards were financially stressed (self-‐ defined and ĐŽŶĨŝƌŵĞĚďǇƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĞƌƐ͛ĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͿ

Tenure x 12 households (27%) were renting (1 public rental)

x 32 households (73%) were owner occupiers (with or without a mortgage)

Energy sources

x 9 households did not have reticulated gas or did not use bottled gas x 17 households did not have gas heating

x 5 households had solar photovoltaic panels

Motivations for participating in research / environmental interest

x Reasons to participate included: receive the voucher; contribute or learn something; because they were asked; curiosity; or wanted to use less energy

x 18 participants expressed environmental concerns but about half of these had limited understanding of appliance energy consumption/ energy literacy

(17)

2.3 L

IMITATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS

The interview sample size was designed to uncover potentially important insights from family households in New South Wales and Victoria, as opposed to measuring the frequency of a particular view or action. However, as with all research, the validity of the findings may be influenced by certain sections of the population self-‐selecting out of or into the project. Notably, the sample does not include parents under 25 years old, (which may in part reflect the wider social trend of delaying starting a family until later), and only one household lived in social housing.

There was a very low rate of participation by fathers which was anticipated by the research team because locations to recruit households with children are more frequently attended by mothers (e.g. childcare centres). In addition, some mothers who are not in full-‐time work may have greater

flexibility to arrange an interview. OƚŚĞƌƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĂďŽƵƚ͚ĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐŝƚǇ͛Žƌ͚ĞŶĞƌŐǇ͛ŝƐƐƵĞƐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚďǇ the authors has attracted more male participants, and some of the representation difference seen in this study may also reflect ƚŚĞƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚƚĞĂŵ͛Ɛ ƌĞĐƌƵŝƚŵĞŶƚĨŽĐƵƐŽŶ͚ŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ͛ŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŽĨ energy. Previous research indicates that many of the energy practices of interest in this study (e.g. cooking, cleaning and washing), are predominately performed by women in Australian family households, and as such their experiences of how and when these practices are performed are important and underrepresented in past research (Strengers 2011; 2013). However, fathers often return home during the peak tariff period and change the household dynamic in important ways that contribute to energy use. Some of these dynamics and the perspective of fathers may be

underrepresented in this study.

Investigation of the actual change in energy consumption of participant households was outside the scope of this study. The research team (and often householders) did not have access to historic household consumption data.

Some households did not provide definitive information about their current electricity tariff (e.g. TOU tariff, or other off-‐peak, flat-‐rate/ inclining block tariff). This was due to a combination of householder uncertainty and/or lack of easy and timely access to a recent electricity bill. Therefore the exact number of participant households who were on a TOU tariff is unknown. Eight households were confirmed to be on a TOU tariff, and another six households were possibly on a TOU tariff. Householder uncertainty about their tariff is both an important finding and limitation of this research. Future work with households on TOU tariffs may require access to customers through an electricity provider to confirm actual tariff arrangements.

Householders without post-‐school level educational qualifications were underrepresented in this study. In addition, there were no participants who identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and some significant migrant populations were not represented.

Interviews were conducted in the autumn months (March-‐May). As such, observations regarding heating, cooling and lighting were limited to milder temperatures and medium-‐low daylight hours compared to what households experience at other times of the year. However, thermal comfort and other activities in summer and winter were discussed with householders.

Although beyond the scope of this study, family households living in northern parts of Australia with warmer climates are not represented. Findings relating to thermal comfort (particularly cooling), drying clothes and other seasonally-‐dependent activities are expected to differ for these households. Further research with family households in hotter regions of Australia is needed to complement this study.

(18)

3 FINDINGS

3.1 A

FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE

:

HAVING CHILDREN AND NEW PRIORITIES

͚zŽƵƌůŝĨĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůǇ.͛Cass

^ƚĂƌƚŝŶŐĂĨĂŵŝůǇŝƐĂĨƵŶĚĂŵĞŶƚĂůĐŚĂŶŐĞŝŶŵŽƐƚƉĞŽƉůĞ͛ƐůŝǀĞƐƚhat significantly disrupts existing household practices, and the energy demand these produce. This section summarises the key ĐŚĂŶŐĞƐƚŚĂƚŽĐĐƵƌƌĞĚŝŶŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚĞƌƐ͛ůŝǀĞƐǁŚĞŶƐƚĂƌƚŝŶŐĂĨĂŵŝůǇ;ƐĞĞTable 2), and the current priorities of family households (see Table 3).

Two overarching priorities for parents were evident from the interviews: x ĚŽŝŶŐǁŚĂƚ͛ƐďĞƐƚĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƌĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ͖ĂŶĚ

x managing limited time and many activities (time efficiency and convenience).

Table 3 ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĂŵŽƌĞĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚĐĂƚĂůŽŐƵĞŽĨƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐĨŽƌƉĂƌĞŶƚƐ͛ƚŝŵĞĂŶĚĂƚƚĞŶƚŝŽŶĂƚŚŽŵĞ͘ In contrast, energy use was not identified as a key consideration amidst the busyness of everyday life ĂŶĚƚŚĞŵĂŶǇƚŚŝŶŐƐƚŚĂƚŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŽ͚ŐĞƚĚŽŶĞ͛ŝŶĨĂŵŝůǇŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƐ͘^ŝŵŝůĂƌĨŝŶĚŝŶŐƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶ reported in recent UK research conducted on energy use in family households (Fell et al. 2014).

Table 2 Key chaŶŐĞƐŝŶŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚĞƌƐ͛ůŝǀĞƐǁŚĞŶƐƚĂƌƚŝŶŐĂĨĂŵŝůǇ

KEY CHANGE ILLUSTRATIVE QUOTES

x Increased time ƉƌĞƐƐƵƌĞƐĂŶĚ͚ǁŽƌŬ͛

x Reduced time and attention for personal needs x Increased emotional and financial pressure, exhaustion

͚ǀĞƌǇƚŚŝŶŐĂůǁĂǇƐƚĂŬĞs longer than you think so really, an hour, it just

ŐŽĞƐůŝŬĞƚŚĂƚ͛͘ Peta

͚tŽƌŬůŽĂĚ͊΀ůĂƵŐŚŝŶŐ΁-‐ ƚŝŵĞĂŶĚǁŽƌŬ͕ǇĞƐ͕΀ůŝĨĞ΁͛ƐũƵƐƚ͞ĚĞŶƐĞƌ͛͘͟>ŝůǇ ͚΀tŝƚŚĂǇŽƵŶŐĐŚŝůĚ΁ƚŚĞƚŝŵĞŝƐĞĂƚĞŶƵƉ. dŚĞƌĞ͛ƐĂůǁĂǇƐƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐǇŽƵ need to prepare for the next thing and even for yourself as well, you care for them, giving them their food and then you eat and by the time you ĞĂƚŝƚ͛ƐƉƌŽďĂďůǇ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞŶǇŽƵŚĂǀĞĂƐŚŽǁĞƌĂŶĚƚŚĞŶŝƚ͛ƐĂůŵŽƐƚ cooking time for them again, and then the cycle of things that you need to do.͛ Susie

͚/ƚ͛ƐƚŚĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞŽƉƉŽƐŝƚĞŽĨŶŽƚŚĂǀŝŶŐĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶ. dŚĞƌĞ͛ƐŶŽƐƉĂĐĞ͕ ƚŚĞƌĞ͛ƐŶŽƚŝŵĞ͕ƚŚĞƌĞ͛ƐŚĞĂƉƐŵŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨ͕ĂŶĚĞǀĞƌǇƚŚŝŶŐŝƐĂůůĂďŽƵƚ ƐŽŵĞďŽĚǇĞůƐĞ͕ŝƚ͛ƐŶĞǀĞƌĂďŽƵƚǇŽƵ͛͘Briony

͚Very little spare time. [Laughing] Expensive. Yes. And that my husband

and I are on the backburner. Our wants and needs come last. Everyone ĞůƐĞ͛ƐĐŽŵĞĨŝƌƐƚ͛͘ Lindy

͚Everything is now linked to what your child needs or wants or what

ŶĞĞĚƐƚŽďĞĚŽŶĞ͙ǇŽƵƌůŝĨĞƌŚǇƚŚŵŝƐĂĐƚƵĂůůǇďĂƐĞĚŽŶǇŽƵƌŬŝĚƌŚǇƚŚŵ rather than the other way around.͛:ŝůů

͚/ŚĂǀĞŶ͛ƚŚĂĚƚŝŵĞƚŽŐĞƚŵǇƐĞůĨŝŶŽƌĚĞƌ͛͘ Mel

͚^ƚƌĞƐƐĞĚ͙͕ƚŚĞŶĞŐĂƚŝǀĞĞŵŽƚŝŽŶƐƐŽŵĞƚŝŵĞƐŚƵƌƚ.͛ Jasmin

͚DƵĐŚŵŽƌĞďƵƐǇĂŶĚŵŽƌĞƉƌĞƐƐƵƌĞ͙ŶŽƚŽŶůǇƚŚĞĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂůƉƌĞƐƐƵƌĞ͕ also the time. ĞĐĂƵƐĞ/͛ŵǁŽƌŬŝŶŐƐŽŝƚ͛ƐǀĞƌǇĚŝĨĨŝcult to keep the ďĂůĂŶĐĞ͕ƚŚĞĨĂŵŝůǇĂŶĚƚŚĞǁŽƌŬ͙ƐŽŵĞƚŝŵĞ/ĨĞĞůǀĞƌǇƚŝƌĞĚ͛͘Rui